In the age of big data, customers are becoming more and more aware of their privacy issues.
- The realization that nothing is for free!
And they demand greater actions from companies to protect consumer rights. Unfortunately this is not in the companies’ best interest. This presents a very controversial debate because while on one hand we have people who want to raise awareness of their rights of ownership and control, on the other the facilitation of such would also mean that consumer rights are significantly compromised.
Companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter feel it is not their best interest to care about consumer rights because their core purpose as a social media platform is to facilitate the exchange of data, and to make money. Therefore they are willing to man-oeuvre in whatever way they can around existing laws as long as it benefits the core values of the company in the long run. Facebook, for example has on many occasions tried to dodge accusations of privacy issues.
Facebook in court.
“If you’ve messaged anyone this week, would you share with us the names of the people you’ve messaged?” Durbin added and Zuckerberg responded, “No, I would probably not choose to do that publicly here.”
In the face of these issues, the EU has decided to put up its own laws (Articles 11 & 13) to stop the exploitation of customer data. It introduces a form of copyright with the digital content that is similar to the physical copyright we are familiar with- dictating that, no user, company or content creator should be able to use links, soundtrack or other user information without original up-loader’s consent. Whilst this would put a cap on company’s exploitation of customer data, it would also significantly reduce consumer freedoms.
Article 13 specifically enables social media platforms to ‘police’ their sites through the use of filters. Whilst this shouldn’t have an effect on what people can or cannot see, it will put a restraint on the format of information people are allowed to put online. Especially in the case of digital marketing, it is suspected that marketing costs would rise. Perhaps the cheaper alternative of micro-influencers would not work out and it would significantly change the ways companies could reach their customers.
So who is the benefactor at the end of the spectrum? The customers who need protection and are subjected to the law and its obligation (the small artists and content creators), or companies who has greater power and control to man-oeuvre around the law? Small businesses will suffer significant losses because of their inability to compete with their better equipped counter parts.
What are we to do?
Of course, you can argue that we can deactivate or social media accounts and cut all ties with any connections of media, but that is not possible. It is human nature that we connect, and in the present age, connection comes at a cost. But it does not mean we should turn away. Whilst we can say Article 13 is a good beginning, more changes to it would be necessary to make sure the law benefits consumers, users and content creators, as much as companies.
For now just focus on using Facebook whilst not letting it use you.
The Marketing Journal 
Hi Amy, thank you for letting me know about privacy laws and giving a persuasive opinions.I would like to add that while we expect privacy laws and regulations to improve, as a part of users, we should also consciously abide by these ethics.After all, the world is perfect because of differences, and everyone’s different voices or productions deserve respect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Xue Ying,
thank you for the comment. I agree, most of times it is up to us to take up the initiative of protecting our own privacy, rather than waiting for laws to do it for us. Also we have become some interconnected through social media it is hard to part with it. Do you think social media needs to be controlled?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Amy, interesting point brought up about Article 13. Article 13 sparked huge controversies online with digital creators. Even though it was introduced to help privacy laws and stop the exploitation of customer data, but instead it angered online users. Do you think they could have approached this differently?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Amy. It was interesting learning about article 13 as I was not aware of this prior. Although it has been put in place by the EU to benefit consumers, it’s hard to understand why companies are still getting away with exploiting their customers information. Facebook is only one example of a company that has breached this, and possibly has only been brought to light due to the size of its platform. There can still be thousands of companies that are exploiting data and doing so without any consequences. Therefore, should stricter measures be put in place to crack down on all companies?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Sofia, thanks for the comment. : ) Yes, I definitely think the powers of giant social media companies need to be curtailed, but at the same time, it is questionable how we go about doing it. It is good to have the a law that reinforces the awareness of privacy issues, but not to go too far as it may also limit the way we interact on social media. I think the measures can be made stricter for companies but less stringent for consumers, and especially online content creators.
LikeLike